The one small silver lining in this is that piece of shit Nancy Grace cannot spend the next couple of years making money off of the appeals.She's almost as bad as that baby killer
casey anthony got away with it
- Thread starter simon482
- Start date
Mur11, the problem is that the prosecution just couldn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. There was no cause of death so it is within the realm of possiblity that it was an accidental or even a natural death. The duct tape did not have any of her DNA on it. The Defence brought all of this to the Jury's attention and it was enough.
The one thing I can definately say is that there are four people at least one of whom knows exactly what happened to that two year old girl. Not to start up the we hate religion gang, but this is one of those times where I have to say that who ever or whom ever that is, that in the end there will be a final accounting.
The one thing I can definately say is that there are four people at least one of whom knows exactly what happened to that two year old girl. Not to start up the we hate religion gang, but this is one of those times where I have to say that who ever or whom ever that is, that in the end there will be a final accounting.
Dating back to Lizzie Borden, American juries are reluctant to convict women murderers. Susan Smith and that Florida woman got convicted but they are the exceptions.
The facts very clearly, IMO, show that she murdered her daughter. Her actions and LIES (and the jury WAS satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied, and lied, and lied..) were completely inconsistent with an accidental death.
Not to pick on your post solely, but to reinstate the definition of reasonable doubt, you can't say IMO. IMO="I think so"
The jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied etc... They were not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her child.
Like many, I think she did it as well. The prosecution failed to convince the 'people that counted' that she did.
Sadly, if true justice had been served through the system, or if vigilante justice plays a part in the future, it won't bring the young girl back. Oddly the way it is now these days, nobody will learn from this and this will be old news.
I'm not familiar with the US Justice system, but is it possible that the decision could be appealed by the State?
12 presumably honest and fair people have heard all the evidence, and they are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. Some on this board are convinced based on little bits and pieces they have heard on the news and on TV shows. I think that is very very arrogant and stupid.
No. She is protected under the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Once acquitted, she can't be charged again for the same crime.
Basically, every time she opened her mouth.
Casey Anthony has been described as the kind of person that will lie to you about the time of day, even if you're wearing a watch.
I followed this trial (blame my morbid curiosity) and Casey is a compulsive and astonishingly skilled liar. She made up the most elaborate stories with details and made up characters when it suited her. They seemed plausible but when they were proven wrong, she'd just switch gears and make up another plausible story.
How she can create so much detail on the fly and keep the stories straight is an impressive talent.
She may have gotten away with murder but this isn’t over. Like OJ, in the end, she’ll get what she deserves.
One such made up character, Zanny the nanny, turns out to be a real person, Zania Gonzales and she’ll be suing Casey for defamation of character. Stay tuned.
Perhaps the media's reporting of this case has been a bit too biased. The Jury was in receipt of more than what we got via the "entertainment"-driven media. I think the Jury was just unable convict someone of murdering a girl when nobody seems to even know what the cause of death was, no a trivial point in a murder case.
I do hope she gets charged to the full extent of the law for the provable disgusting behavior she engaged in the immediate aftermath of the girl's death (eg. coverup)
I do hope she gets charged to the full extent of the law for the provable disgusting behavior she engaged in the immediate aftermath of the girl's death (eg. coverup)
No matter what we say boys....The girl is innocent.
Thankfully we live in a society that lets 12 people judge us!
Thankfully we live in a society that lets 12 people judge us!
What was her motive to lie? I find that quite suspicious. Is she protecting someone else who killed her infant? Is she partially to blame but didn't do it (iow, she allowed it)?
People have gone to prison on circumstantial evidence before. Was there enough here? I don't know the details.
I was a jury foreman once at a drug trafficking trial and we acquitted this couple whose previous trial was declared a mistrial. We looked at the evidence and decided not guilty but we had to persuade one jurist who thought they were guilty, but we laid out the facts and even asked the judge to explain elements of the law as it pertained to the charges. In good conscience, we couldn't convict. The couple also didn't fit the stereotype, so that sort of helped.
She can't be charged by the state. However if they can find the law, the Federal government can still charge her.
Example would be perhaps kidnapping, and/or accessory to it, after all the child did dissapear for a time and she never called anyone about it.
An appeal of a jury's finding of not guilty is not the equivalent of being re-charged. The double-jeopardy provisions of the US Constitution do not come into play in an appeal - it is not double jeopardy because it is merely a continuation of the original proceeding. In truth, the DA's office could appeal the verdict if they want to. However in order to appeal successfully they would have to show the Appeals court an error in law (e.g., the judge's instructions to the jury were flawed, a piece of evidence was admitted that should not have been, a piece of evidence was excluded that should have been admitted).
In Canada the Crown Attorney could also succeed on appeal if they could prove the jury's verdict was so unreasonable that no reasonable jury, presented with the same evidence, could possibly have reached that conclusion. It is a very high standard and a very rare day when an appellate court will overturn a jury's verdict on that basis. The jury is the one that heard all the evidence and had the best opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses by observing their demeanour on the stand - their verdict is entitled to a significant degree of deference by the appeals court. I imagine there is a similar standard in Florida but never having practiced there I would not be inclined to speculate - Aardvark would know better what the standard would be to over turn a jury verdict in the US.
I am sure the DA in this case is closely reviewing their options for appeal - it is standard practice anytime a case is lost.
I belive the since the civil court was not subject to the same standards as the criminal court you should not say they found that he caused the death. The find was that they thought he could have caused the death and since they thought no one else had reason to kill them - they decided he was mostly to have done it.
